Russia's next-generation T-95 tank

I linked to Kontakt-5 ERA - which apparantly isn`t ERA according to you. But is, according to NII Stalli who make it.

who mentioned anything about ARENA-E? no one - YOU mentioned ARENA - and at no time mentioned the export version - KBM`s literature is for ARENA as
supplied to the russian army - and they say its for intercepting ATGM`s and Grenades and not for M829A1,2 or 3 - K-5 ERA and better is for that.

Drozd-2 -nothing to do with KE round interception - in fact its not actually as good as arena

Kaktus is a clam shell ERA ; using a lighter scale instead of a brick - thats from KBM who make the damn stuff and is twice as effectively as contact
(K-5)

Relikt - also made by KBM is 5 times more effective that K-5 and is a heavier ERA brick which is why it weighs more ; this can be used in cojunction
with Shtora-1 EOCMDAS `soft kill` system and the ARENA (or Drozd-2) ATGM `Hard Kill` system for effective protection from Hyper velocity Long Rod
penetrators.

no one - YOU mentioned ARENA - and at no time mentioned the export version - KBM`s literature is for ARENA as supplied to the russian army -
and they say its for intercepting ATGM`s and Grenades and not for M829A1,2 or 3 - K-5 ERA and better is for that.

Here’s your 2nd source, the one that you just said does not mention the export verstion, but is “supplied to the russian army”;

"Arena-E" Active Protection System for Armoured Vehicles.

This is KBMs offitial arms export site, and this is one of their “product” pages;

To establish business relations in compliance with the Russian Law one is requested to forward an original official request indicating the End User
Country, range and quantity of defence products and service list to the Committee for Military and Technical Cooperation with Foreign States addressed
to M.A. Dmitriev, Chairman of CMTC of the Russian Federation (a copy to our address) expressing intentions of Customer and requesting to commission
the work to FSUE "KBM".

This request should be sent to the address: 18/1 Ovchinnikovskaya nab, Moscow, Fax: 7-(495) 950-16-84, 950-16-88, 953-12-49.

Drozd-2 -nothing to do with KE round interception - in fact its not actually as good as arena

Really? Well I’m glad that we’ve established that Drozd-2 is a previous generation system, and I can only hope that at one point somewhere along
the line it’ll be understood that its basic design is used to develop an APS which can intercept KE rounds, aka iron fist.

Kaktus is a clam shell ERA ; using a lighter scale instead of a brick - thats from KBM who make the damn stuff and is twice as effectively as
contact (K-5)

The sources have already been listed, this is redundant.

Relikt - also made by KBM is 5 times more effective that K-5 and is a heavier ERA brick which is why it weighs more ; this can be used in
cojunction with Shtora-1 EOCMDAS `soft kill` system and the ARENA (or Drozd-2) ATGM `Hard Kill` system for effective protection from Hyper velocity
Long Rod penetrators.

The 3 different SYSTEMS work together.

Well thanks for telling me, because I guess I didn’t make it clear enough right here;

Kaktus/Relikt are active integrated SYSTEMS.

I don’t know how much more clearly I can combine the words ACTIVE, INTEGRATED and SYSTEM.

Since you obviously don’t car to calculate the size/weight/type of the charge needed to intercept a KE penetrator, just tell me this, how active ERA
systems like Kaktus/Relikt- 3rd gen) are actually initiated?

do you now understand you are wrong.

Yes I do, I really do, but that’s the price that must be paid.

“In the end you can’t prove anything to anybody, you can only hope to open minds, and an open mind is one step away from a change of heart!”

Originally posted by Harlequin
KBM themselevs state ARENA is designed to counter ATGM such as TOW and Grenade type weapons like the RPG-7 - link as above.

Iskander will still deny that he is wrong.
Iskander can be told a FACT and he will deny it and bring up some useless infomation that was published back in 2000 or even before.
He with out a doubt has an inferiority complex with the west!!!

^^^^ This is a very unnecessary and somewhat insulting post that add zero to the discussion. Iskander knows his stuff better than most people on this
forum

Can we please all stop flinging poop?

Iskander, I think where we are disagreeing is on the effectiveness and range of the T-95s sensors. From what I have read, radar is only "mentioned"
as having a range of 50m, and I have seen no sourced mention of any other radar suite. While I believe that datalinking with other sensors along the
flight path of the projectile would allow the tank to hit the penetrator with ARENA, I do not see that as a likely scenario.

Iskander, I think where we are disagreeing is on the effectiveness and range of the T-95s sensors. From what I have read, radar is only
"mentioned" as having a range of 50m, and I have seen no sourced mention of any other radar suite.

even the maker calls it an ERA brick - picture in the middle of the above link to support that.

why in so many threads that you press `reply` to are you the only 1 with a certain opinion , and continuing on the same line time and again when
frequently proved wrong?

Kaktus is an era tile - nothing about a system at all , and

Relikt ERA is quite different from Konract-V ERA. It uses a new type of ERA tile (not the standard 4S22), which is much more effective against
APFSDS. Besides, it is made of independant modules which can be easily removed or changed when damaged or in the process of vehicle upgrading. As for
the shaped-charge jet distruction capabilities, Relikt ERA is as efficient as Kontakt-V and other known ERA types.

totally twisting things - a thought , i do think arena or rather a scaled up version would be quite good on a ship for use against supersonic ASM`s -
in stead of trying to direct a stream of bullets at a fast moving target - you just blast a mallion flachettes in the area.

the diagram is in russian and heres the translation :
1. Installation of DP (dynamic protection) on turret of T-72B/T-90 "Kontakt-V"

2. Installation of DP on turret of T-72BM with modular DP "Relikt"

as btvt calls it Dynamic protection, like btvt , most russian sources call it dynamic armour/dynamic cumlative armour/dynamic protection
not heavy ERA ...maybe tagil is using it for better understanding for westerners , as westerners do not use the term dynamic armor

my point is that iskander could be refering to dynamic protection as active protection , possibly hes using it in a slightly strange way ....

dynamic means active doesn't it??

------------
and iskander , i have one thing to say for further understanding ,
join tanknet.org , and ask Vasiliy Fofanov for his opinion on your queries ,
his opinion on soviet tanks is very much respected throughout tanknet.org and other forums ...

And that’s while Russians are currently in their 4th generation of active ERA, or as manson properly pointed out, dynamic cumulative amour, we
don’t even have proper categories to classify them properly.

and please learn how ERA works as its painfully apparant you haven`t got a clue.

OK Harlequin, with all due respect, I’m just tired of your continues bad sportsman ship. While other ATS members are constructively exchange
information and inform each other, like this for example;

Is this it Iskander?:

i214.photobucket.com...

Iff not, then i will continue my search for some more images on the internet! (poor, poor search engines

That’s exactly the one James R. Hawkwood, thank you very much!

So you see Harlequin, forums are for COOPERATION and free exchange of information, not for chest pounding and proving who’s right and who’s
wrong.

stop `plowing ahead` with your own views and opinions when the makers of both K-5 (NII Stalli) and Arena (KBM) clearly state you are
wrong.

Point in case, Harlequin, please, if you are so itching to prove somebody wrong, go to your local political party office and go at it.

totally twisting things - a thought , i do think arena or rather a scaled up version would be quite good on a ship for use against supersonic
ASM`s - in stead of trying to direct a stream of bullets at a fast moving target - you just blast a mallion flachettes in the area.

It was experimented with back in the late 70s. Soviets experimented with various caliber rocket packs that were armed with thermobaric warheads, and
had “follow the leader” type guidance.

Other then shrapnel, massive pressure differential created by all those blasts either literally flipped incoming missile over of stalled out their
ramjets.

my point is that iskander could be refering to dynamic protection as active protection , possibly hes using it in a slightly strange way ....

dynamic means active doesn't it??

That is correct.

and iskander , i have one thing to say for further understanding ,
join tanknet.org , and ask Vasiliy Fofanov for his opinion on your queries ,
his opinion on soviet tanks is very much respected throughout tanknet.org and other forums ...

Thank you, I’ll definitely give it a look.

As to ERA, you are absolutely right, Russian classifications are entirely different from Western and thus all of the confusing. I figure that
that’s exactly how Western analysts want it, because if compared generation by generational, western armor development simply does not even make the
next page..

Typical designation is “aktivnaya dinamicheskyaya bronya”- active dynamic armor, but there are very important differences.

That general designation includes subcategories like “dynamic defense” and “active armor”.

i allready linked russianarmour.info -but iskander disputed what i linked to from there.

No Harlequin, I did not dispute the source. Quote me directly if you wish.

i disagree - whilst the termanology is different ERA is not a system - ARENA is a system (detection/ interception / destruction) using
multiple devices.

ERA is not a system, and Arena a PART of the ENTIRE defense system.

When we’re talking about 4th/5th generation here, stuff like “Active armor, containing a layer of dynamic defense elements…”, one has to find
out what a pre-detonation sequence is and how it is initiated as a part of a SYTEM.

In short, the armor “intercepts” the projectile before it begins impacting the armor.

Hoe else does a rod almost a meter in length can be cut into pieces before it punches through the main armor?

Again, you have the problem, I gave you the numbers, do the math, it all makes perfect sense when the problem is solved.

I’ll give you a visual example which hopefully might give you some direction.

Thing of warrior with a javelin, a Roman Pilum for example. His opponent has a round shield.

Javelin is a very effective penetrating weapon with an effective range of about 20 meters. From that distance it will easily pierce the round shield
and penetrate right into the target, even if his opponent takes a defensive kneeling position, which regularly would provide very effective protection
from archers.

Now image that that the opponent realizes that he can not use his shield passively because it’s simply not strong enough and he decides to use it
actively.

When he sees the javelin being thrown, and judges its trajectory as it flies trough the air, and then THROWS his round shield like a discus (think
frisby), right into the path of the javelin.

That thrown shield will have a high angle rotation, and when the javelin strikes it, even though it would penetrate it, its trajectory will be
completely altered and its kinetic energy wasted. It will simply fall short and to the side of the target.

Now consider that the soldier with a round shield also has a javelin, and when he throws it, his foe will not have the benefit of a similar defense.

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made
following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that
US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO
tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of
the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also
effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive
armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military
inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty
years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such
weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1
the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1
Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10
Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles –
all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA
gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by
the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw
Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at
the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the
Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely
impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern
designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do
much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the
more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent
Russian military industrial complex."

*sigh* It isn't the 90's any more. We are in 2008, stop posting out of date info....
Another thing about the info you posted the Kontakt-5 was tested against A1 DU sabots, the US us A3 now, while the British use Charm3, which is a
superior ammunition to A3...

*sigh* It isn't the 90's any more. We are in 2008, stop posting out of date info....
Another thing about the info you posted the Kontakt-5 was tested against A1 DU sabots, the US us A3 now, while the British use Charm3, which is a
superior ammunition to A3...

[edit on 24-1-2008 by SKUNK2]

Hmm, you're right and the new Russian armor is 3-5 tmes more effective than Kontact-5. I doubt the new US KE rounds are 3-5 times more effective. In
fact the US tanks still use the old 44 caliber barrel length which has been superceded by the 55 caliber version.
Please post at least something to back you up, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Well, i can't really prove any thing about modern armour, except Dorchester currently offers the best protection. The Challenger2 with add-on armor
packages comes in at a weight of nearly 90,000kg...
All you lot also babble on about things that cannot really be proven! Like specs of modern armour and ammunition, it's secret infomation.
One thing i do know is that during the invasion in 03 Abrams and Challengers were firing straight through Iraqi armour at 1500m+.
Also with out a doubt the T-95 will be a good tank, but i don't think it will be revolutionary, just an evolusion of Russian design philosophy!!!
Move fast, hit-hard and(hopefully) don't get hit. Russia's design shows this...

Also, the Russians are moving away from "Passive" defence to "Active" defence. Arena-E is showing signs that it will be a very capable system.
Shtora-1 is a passive/active defense system which attempts to jam older type missiles. The Russians realized that future tanks will not be able to
stop future threats unless they are built better armored which will definitely mean a bigger heavier tank which defeats the purpose of a tank so they
decided to adopt new methods of "protection". Mobility is the tanks best weapon in the battle field and you cant swap mobility for marginal
increases in armour

kaktus was developed for black eagle tank , the latest is relikt dynamic armor for upgrade of T-72 and the development of BMPT and T-90A or should i
say Relikt heavy ERA(western term for dynamic armor)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.